Not a third party, Ol' BC - a NEW party. Two things:

1. The Republican brass will NOT allow a takeover of the party by conservatives. It WILL NOT happen.
2. IF conservatives are truly "starting to get some calcium in their spines", the Republican Party will be the "third party".

The Republican Party hasn't been effective for nearly thirty years. Donk loyalty is going to continue to win regardless of any change in party structure.

Of course, there will be no "calcium" in conservative spines after the election, just like last time, so there will be neither a new party nor a move to fix the existing party. Conservatives have been all talk and no action for a long time. If conservatives were serious, there would have been action a long time ago. If 24 years of willingly voting for lame-ass candidates doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

RWR

Sage,

To Para 1:
My forum is here. Should Christie, et al want to know what I think they should do, let them look here and learn. I've been around long enough for them to know where to find the RWRepublic, especially with the direct contact I had with the Lonegan campaign prior to the election. If he gives a flying fuck about what I think he should do, which let's face it, he doesn't, let him come here and participate in the discourse.

To Para 2:
That, my well-established friend, is why you are the "quintessential cynic", and I am the "quintessential optimist". Don't forget that technology works both ways!

The real question is whether or not Americans will wake up by 2016, and whether the required stance would be taken under the Republican in the unlikely event that he should win (especially given that legally he is running unopposed), or it be better for the cause of real change to let the illegal Donk back in. It's a tough call, to be sure, especially given that the Donk is sufficiently determined to put down any revolution that might occur. It's going to be a much tougher battle against the Donk, but with the Republican, it's going to be much less likely that the battle will even take place.

We will just have to see.

Keep your head up, my friend. Americans will do the right thing in the end. They will have to.

RWR

When did this change for you Don?

... Or were you playing the role of satire troll?

RWR

That could very well be the most friendly thing you have ever said on this blog, Don.

RWR

How is America "kicking Australia's ass"? In sports? In military power? I don't understand your frame of reference. What kind of chest-thumping thing are you talking about? If you mean quality of life, it's better here, mate.

Economically, you guys are largely dependent upon us and China. Militarily, you couldn't compete with us if you wanted to. As for your "quality of life", I wouldn't call it better, "mate". You have no self-protection rights to speak of, so anyone could come and take it from you at any time, including your government. You admit to high taxation - even boasted about it earlier in the thread. What do you think the purpose of that is? If you think it's anything other than claiming what is yours as what is theirs, you are in for a huge surprise. Think anti-gun laws make you safer? Ask the college students murdered at Virginia Tech. I think you'd find they'd disagree, if they were available to comment.

I do wonder what Christ would say to someone who writes "I'll pray for you when you get shot." In other words, you hope I get shot. But you'll pray then. Is that a sentiment your Jesus would endorse?

Don't know for sure what Christ would say, but I do know your premise (that by saying that I hope you get shot) is flawed. I'm simply noting that since you advocate disarming the public, you are making yourself an easy target for armed nutcases who would be glad to, well, shoot you.

As for Jesus' sentiment, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill."

Oh, and don't forget, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Guns do have a way of keeping people peaceful. You can't deny that. Just try being otherwise around a gun owner.

Of course one would find Australia fascinating. Any kind of cultural experience is so. I've traveled much of Europe, several of our beautiful states, and Canada. Doesn't mean I want to live in these places forever. If not for family, I'd get the hell out of New Jersey, though. This place is getting worse all the time. Damned socialists!

They may be drunk in the streets on weekends, but there are almost no homeless people here in Melbourne, a city with 3 million people in the metropolitan area. That's because the socialist government has tonnes of programmes like sheltered housing, staffed by government workers, to keep a roof over the heads of the people who have been losers in life. High taxes, high services, but still a high quality of life.

Why not encourage those who have been losers in life to become winners? That "high quality of life" can't and won't be sustained indefinitely, but freedom and capitalism can and do. It's not like these people lost some lottery or something. They are in their situation because of the choices they have themselves made.

Why is it that Americans who have seen the most adversity seem to enjoy the most success? Not because of any government program, but because we have a superior desire to be successful as individuals - and that will breed more success than your socialism will ever even aspire to.

Socialism was a proven failure before our Constitution was even written. Live in your Marxist utopia if you like, but don't come crying to me when it comes crashing down around you.

You're getting screwed by a government that is degrading the value of the dollars you have in your pocket, which makes you poorer.

I'm getting screwed in the same way you are boasting about getting screwed in Australia. Governments screw people. That's what they do. The government being involved in every aspect of American life is what is causing it, just like in Australia. When the government gets out of the way, wealth in our country grows. During the Reagan years, for example, we had more people move up from the poorest fifth of Americans to the wealthiest fifth than we had people stay in the poorest fifth. Why? Because Reagan cut all that stupid shit back - DUH.

Your last statements seem to imply that you don't think I know what I am talking about. I've got a college degree of my own, and nearly fifteen years in a public sector unionized job. I'm much happier where I am now, and my prospects for the future have never been better.

Furthermore, I'm quite well read and extremely intelligent, even if I do say so myself. I think Sage, who has known me nearly ten years, would agree, particularly to the latter.

Enjoy your dream world, my liberal friend. It's not going to last you forever.

RWR

2008-06-21T01:26:36

If Conservatives set the agenda and support Romney as I predict they will ...

I'm not sure exactly how you figure they will, as they haven't even come close to setting the agenda since 1984.

To support Romney is to support the liberal Republican agenda. Romney is no conservative, and he should be distrusted to the exact same degree as Oblama - even more so. After all, Oblahma doesn't claim to be conservative as Romney does. This makes Romney an even bigger liar than Oblahma.

I live in New Jersey, which will go to Obama anyway, so I could vote for Bozo the Clown and it wouldn't matter.

RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
Jackson '12

As a black man, I’m actually sad that Obama is such an abject failure that he will be a one-term president.

Don't count your chickens, Kevin. Oblahma has enough dirty tricks up his sleeve to run away with it. Add to this yet another lame loser choice of a candidate by the Republicans, and it's Obama's to lose.

The up side is that this will strengthen the TEA Party and force Republican voters to face the cold hard truth that the party does not represent them or what they stand for. Even in the primaries, people with no desire at all for a candidate like Romney pledged him their support if he should win the nomination. HOGWASH! The only way to get Republicans to stop offering crappy candidates like McCain and Romney is to STOP VOTING FOR THEM! After this election, the people will have no choice other than to stand up to Obama and his accomplices in both parties and FORCE THE CONSTITUTION ON THEM. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail, and the Republicans will cower, paving the way for a more appropriate replacement.

Even if Romney wins, he is ideologically close enough to Obama that there won't be an appreciable change from a liberty standpoint. So your choices are destroy the economy and lose your liberty or save the economy and lose your liberty. Either way, your liberty is toast. Patrick Henry? Who the hell is he?

Enough is enough.

RWR www.rightwingrocker.com
Jackson '12

Seriously Kevin. This satire was waaaayyy too close for comfort.

Robamneycare cannot be allowed into the White House. The SCOTUS must shoot down the legislation in its entirety for a Romney run to make sense.

Then you have this business of entertaining the idea of a non-natural born citizen for VP. Didn't we have enough of this crap with the non-natural born in the WH the last 4 years?

All the while, the best candidate for POTUS is right here. Should Obamacare survive the Supreme Court or Romney nominate an ineligible person for VP, I will be voting for Kevin Jackson! In fact, I may do so anyway!

RWR www.rightwingrocker.com

There is NO definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Minor vs Happerset case. NONE.

Wrong. From Minor v. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens

The book by Vattel is a commentary on the law of nations, and happens to mention what exactly that means. This is about Natural Law, which people have no control over. It does not change with the person speaking or writing. Also don't forget that British common law defined a natural born subject as anyone born to a British father. This was, I believe, still in effect in 1961 when Obama was born to his British father. Interesting that the very nationality the Founders sought to keep out of the White House was the first to successfully dodge the law.

A citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen per se. Birth in a country only makes one native born, not natural born. That is the difference.

You have merely re-hashed the same tired arguments. The Heritage Foundation is not a conservative organization. It is a REPUBLICAN organization, which means that it is conservative when being so is to the Republicans' advantage. Kinda like redefining natural born works in their favor when they have an ineligible native waiting in the wings. You haven't shown any reasonable justification for going against the Founders' definition of natural born citizen. No less than four Supreme Court opinions have supported Vattel, and the Founders' understanding would have been Vattel. They deliberately avoided British common law in as many cases as possible. To say otherwise is not to have read Livingston's opinion. Almost all of the Founders were born here. Had that been good enough, they would not have seen a need to include a grandfather clause so that Mr. Washington could serve as President. Their opinion is the only one that matters, since it is still their philosophy that, by law, is supposed to be in place.

RWR

OMG HAHAHHAHA

RWR